I think is way better than Romney; however he did vote for TARP and for the Patriot Act. I very much like how he continuously cites Ayn Rand philosophy and cites and understands Austrian Economics. He clearly has an understanding of the free market and has a background in economics versus graft and cronyism.

Tucker, he probably DOES have a better understanding than most of economics, having double majored in econ and poli sci in undergrad. But then he's been in politics ever since. An economist he is not, any more than my 20 year old poli sci degree makes me a political scientist.

"career politician" sums it up for me. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what it is.

I think it was a good move for Romney, but I'm still hesitant. Ryan is closer to my idealistic libertarianism, but he isn't close enough, as tucker made strong points behind. Pretty disappointed with the two main parties.

I'm just glad (and quite surprised) that he's not a _____ republican. Fill in the blank w/Hispanic, Black, Female, Muslim, Asian, or whatever other special groups of identity politics are out there. I fully expected a different choice that more clearly was intended to shore up a particular base. i.e. Rubio vis a vis Hispanic voters. Although most in the know, know that Runio's not very strong w/Hispanics anyway.

as far as his 14 yrs of house experience, while i abhor career politicians, as a VP choice it makes sense to have someone who at least has some understanding and experience w/how Washington works from the inside. Albeit VP is head of Senate, not House, but you get the point.

the VP debates should be fun. Another thing I like about him is he speaks w/confidence, but not in a snarky or condescending way, like what really turned me off about Santorum.

I don't have much to say about the guy, but Mitt needs something. He is continuing to sag in the polls, but I haven't seen numbers since he was announced as the running mate. I figured for sure Mitt would have picked someone with some business experience considering he said it was an important quality to have for a president.

Rep. Ryan went along with the Bush Administration in supporting more federal involvement in education. This is contrary to the traditional Republican position, which included support for abolition of the Department of Education and decreasing federal involvement in education.

Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

Interesting analysis... we have one of the most moderate, milquetoast, Republicans possible, a guy who instituted a state healthcare system that goes directly against the free market and liberty. They chose Paul Ryan to help appease the conservative base. What more do you want? Who do you suggest he should have chosen, Joe Lieberman? Paul Ryan isn't conservative enough in my book, his budget takes ten years to balance...

Does anyone here actually get outside their living room or their regular circles? I do all the time and I can't see how this even going to be a close election. I regularly debate with a lady here in AZ who is running for US Congress after serving here in the AZ House. She runs on the Democratic ticket and has a history and relationship with AZ Socialist Party. In short, she doesn't even agree with Obama's agenda. I also regularly debate with a Democratic Party Vice Chair and a Young Democrat National Committeeperson, she was a delegate for Hillary and she hates Obama's agenda. Not every Democrat out there believes in Obama's Democrat Party. This election is going to be all about cheating at the polls and stuffing the ballot boxes - The Chicago Way. This is why Obama is so upset about all the voter ID laws and all the crap about how voter ID laws hurt minorities.

As President Abraham Lincoln said,

"It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time;
you can even fool some of the people all of the time;
but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time."

Dems are a much more fractured, less cohesive bunch than the republicans. Republicans are much better at rallying together and unifying. Dems will always have somebody complaining that it goes to far and another saying it doesn't go far enough. Dems are more naturally critics than followers.

It doesn't surprise me at all to hear what you are saying. I think you would've found the same sorts of internal criticisms of Clinton during his turn in office (far too moderate / conservative, etc).

Yes, many, many Conservatives, including myself, hate Romney. I probably won't even vote for him (he should win AZ on the LDS vote alone), but if it looks close I will. I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson. I think you will have a lot more Republicans that will vote for Romney just to get rid of Obama, even though they don't really like Romney. I doubt many Democrats will vote for Obama though because he's from their party or because they dislike Romney. Romney will pull some Democrats, while Obama won't pull many Republicans.

Does anyone here actually get outside their living room or their regular circles? I do all the time and I can't see how this even going to be a close election. I regularly debate with a lady here in AZ who is running for US Congress after serving here in the AZ House. She runs on the Democratic ticket and has a history and relationship with AZ Socialist Party. In short, she doesn't even agree with Obama's agenda. I also regularly debate with a Democratic Party Vice Chair and a Young Democrat National Committeeperson, she was a delegate for Hillary and she hates Obama's agenda. Not every Democrat out there believes in Obama's Democrat Party. This election is going to be all about cheating at the polls and stuffing the ballot boxes - The Chicago Way. This is why Obama is so upset about all the voter ID laws and all the crap about how voter ID laws hurt minorities.

As President Abraham Lincoln said,

"It is true that you may fool all of the people some of the time;
you can even fool some of the people all of the time;
but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time."

Sooooo.... you're basically saying everyone hates Obama (or his policies), regardless of their side of the aisle, so the election shouldn't be close. Unless it is... in which case that will be because Obama cheated and rigged the election. Am I reading that right?

Nice theory. It allows you to feel like you were 100% right no matter how things turn out. I've gotta start thinking that way. I'll never be wrong again!

Political ideals aside, 95% of the population can not relate to Romney and his silver spoon. Like it or not, the anger towards the wealthy and wall street is very alive in this country. For that reason he is viewed as a wolf in sheep's clothing. No one really likes either candidate and I think it will be difficult for Romney to win.

Big D, the replies to the article you posted are more important than the article itself. That Politico article is pure crap. "oh, sure they're publicly praising the choice, but a bunch of people who I can't tell you their names, cuz uh um, they told me not to, say they don't like him, so there. Party insiders (people you aren't cool enough to know) don't like him. trust me. take my word for it". pure crap.

I don't think this is even going to be close. all the major polls currently have flaws. way oversampling one party over the other and not polling likely voters (not just dem oversampling, but some polls have republican oversampling too). You have to know that the lion's share of the media is in the tank for Obama. period. Just spend some time reading the comments where they are allowed. it's +90% negative toward Obama from my experience. with the exception being more overtly left outlets (like Huffpo, etc). I think there are more people who defend Obama on Wakeworld than there are on most online news outlets.

More delusion from Tucker. I am almost 100% certain Obama will win this election with relative ease. To say "there will be democrats that vote for Romney, but there won't be any republicans vote for Obama" is asinine. Before you start posting a bunch of YouTube videos that I probably won't watch and a bunch of conservative blogging that I probably won't read, just look at the electoral map and realistically decide how you think Mitt can get to the needed votes.

More delusion from Tucker. I am almost 100% certain Obama will win this election with relative ease. To say "there will be democrats that vote for Romney, but there won't be any republicans vote for Obama" is asinine. Before you start posting a bunch of YouTube videos that I probably won't watch and a bunch of conservative blogging that I probably won't read, just look at the electoral map and realistically decide how you think Mitt can get to the needed votes.

Desperation is fun to watch...

Yes, lets look at the map...

Colorado
9 electoral votes

While George W. Bush won the state in 2000 and 2004, President Obama won it by 9 points in 2008. Looking at the 2010 Election results shows this state as a toss-up, but trending Republican from 2008.

Florida
29 electoral votes

The state's large Hispanic population could work in President Obama's favor, but Republicans cleaned up in the Sunshine State in the 2010 midterms. Rubio is also very well liked in Florida and will help Romney/Ryan. Republicans cleaned up in 2010.

New Hampshire went heavily for President Obama -- and Democrats -- in 2008, but then elected a Republican senator and two GOP House members in 2010. It is RED too!

Ohio
18 electoral votes

The epicenter of the fight for the Rust Belt, Ohio has it all: rural voters, minority voters and economically-strapped voters. Again, look at the 2010 results.

Virginia
13 electoral votes

The Commonwealth is the single swingiest state in the country. President Obama was the first Democrat to win it since 1964, but both sides acknowledge it will be a major battleground in November. 2010 results.

Wisconsin
10 electoral votes

No Republican has carried the Badger State at the presidential level since 1984, but the GOP made major gains in 2010, winning the governor's mansion and ousting a Democratic Senate incumbent. I think Paul Ryan will help here, Wisconsin knows who he is and what he is about.

North Carolina
15 electoral votes

President Obama won the Tar Heel State by 0.4 percent in 2008, the first time a Democrat won the state since 1976. The people of North Carolina know he Obama is. They won't vote for him again, they know what Hope and Change is. 2010 results showed a move back towards RED.

In 2008 no one knew who Obama was, now he has a record that is running away from. In 2010 the Democrats got their butts handed to them across the country. What has Obama or the Democrats done since 2010 to change that trend? Nothing, that's what!

The same thing that happened all across the country happened in Michigan in the 2010 elections. Rick Snyder - Republican, with no government experience won by over 58% in the race for governor. Look at the 2010 electoral map, again all RED!

Now go and read the 2010 race results for the "Solid Blue" states like Minnesota... they are slowly being taken over too.

Quote:

State Highlights

Minnesotans, who endured a seven-month recount after a deadlocked 2008 Senate election, are in for more uncertainty. The governor’s race remained undecided on Wednesday, with Mark Dayton, a Democrat and former one-term senator, clinging to a narrow lead over Tom Emmer, a Republican state representative.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a two-term Republican who is stepping down and may run for president, said he was willing to stay on the job through the duration of a recount under the terms of the State Constitution. A recount appeared likely to be automatically triggered because Mr. Dayton’s 9,000-vote lead was less than half of 1 percent of the 2.1 million votes cast.

Mr. Dayton’s showing was one of the few bright spots for Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer Labor Party. For the first time in 38 years, Republicans captured control of the State Senate, and they also took back the Minnesota House, said Kathryn Pearson, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota.

Republicans scored another surprising victory in the northeastern Congressional district that includes the Iron Range. A political newcomer, Chip Cravaack, defeated Representative James L. Oberstar, an 18-term Democrat and chairman of the House Transportation Committee.

An issue frequently debated in the governor’s race was what to do about Minnesota’s projected $6 billion deficit. Mr. Dayton said he would raise taxes on the wealthy, while Mr. Emmer pledged to cut government spending.

I thought Ryan was an odd choice, and probably has the Obama camp a bit relieved. Seems to me that Ryan really hurts Romney in Florida, despite Rubio's popularity? I guess Willard felt that he had to do something to try and fire up the base to even come out and vote, because he's really hurting in just about every other voter category...

Who is desperate? Romney loses FL. Look at all of the "GOP victory" candidates in FL that are being challenged this election; by other republicans. And you lose any credibility by insinuating that Obama won't win MN.

"Ryan's big talk of small government bears little, if any, resemblance with how he actually votes.

In national politics, where perception is almost always more important than reality, Ryan has managed to perpetrate one of the greatest scams in recent memory by making conservatives believe he's a glorious mix of Ron Paul, Ayn Rand and Barry Goldwater.

Would a supposed Tea Party darling vote with Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson Jr., John Kerry, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Bernie Sanders on one of the past decade's most important pieces of legislation? Of course not.

Yet, that's exactly what Ryan did when he voted in support of TARP, the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.

Oh, and Ryan benefitted handily from that reprehensible vote. He recently snagged $12,150 from Wells Fargo, $10,000 from Goldman Sachs and $9,700 from Bank of America for his campaign coffers, according to campaign disclosures published by the website Open Secrets.

The conservative cause's golden boy has plenty more bad votes where that came from. In 2003, Ryan voted for Medicare Part D, which expanded government control of healthcare to make prescription drugs an entitlement -- and cost Americans more than $55 billion annually, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Ryan also voted for the auto bailout, No Child Left Behind and ethanol subsidies.

He even opposes repealing the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires federal construction contractors to pay prevailing wages. Davis-Bacon increases construction costs for taxpayers and discriminates against talented non-union workers. As a result of this AFL-CIO brownnosing, Ryan has racked up tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from labor unions, according to Mother Jones.

Even "The Path to Prosperity," Ryan's deficit decreasing budget proposal, wasn't nearly as fiscally conservative as he would have Americans believe.

Ryan's proposed budget, for example, does nothing to reduce America's ballooning defense spending, which has doubled in the past decade, according to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The Cato Institute found that "The Path to Prosperity" only modestly decreases nondefense discretionary spending, does little to roll back the size and scope of federal bureaucracies and fails to actually provide for specific ways to trim Social Security -- a major component of Ryan's cost savings.

At first blush, the inclusion of Ryan on the GOP presidential ticket appears to be a win for conservatives -- and a welcome attempt by Romney to reach out to those Republicans who distrust him the most.

However, the facts show that Ryan has a schizophrenic voting record on the issues he claims to care about the most -- namely spending, entitlement reform and the national debt. His speeches may make him seem like a Tea Party hero, but his voting record has "RINO" and "unprincipled squish" written all over it.

So what are Republican voters really getting with Ryan? In the end, something that not many of them actually want: More of the same old disappointing Republican Party that is unwilling to seriously address entitlement reform or reduce spending."

I don't think Ryan can quite make up his mind on Ayn Rand. In his April 2012 National Review interview he called reports of his adherence to Rand's views an "urban legend" and said that he was more deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.

But in 2005 in a speech to the Atlas Society (a group dedicated to promoting Rand's beliefs) he said "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
He went on to say that "the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."

He can't seem to make up his mind. Noooooow I see why he and Willard get along...

More delusion from Tucker. I am almost 100% certain Obama will win this election with relative ease. To say "there will be democrats that vote for Romney, but there won't be any republicans vote for Obama" is asinine. Before you start posting a bunch of YouTube videos that I probably won't watch and a bunch of conservative blogging that I probably won't read, just look at the electoral map and realistically decide how you think Mitt can get to the needed votes.

I'm not going to read your liberal newspaper article fanboy... I know who Paul Ryan is, but in comparison to Biden and Obama, he is head and shoulders above both on the conservative scale.

Liberal newspaper? In Chattanooga, TN? You are even more clueless than I previously thought, doucheboy.

If anyone else that has more than 10 brain cells, so this eliminates you Tucker, wants to question the "liberal newspaper article", google Chattanooga Times Free Press, and see if it indeed fits the criteria of "liberal newspaper".

I don't think Ryan can quite make up his mind on Ayn Rand. In his April 2012 National Review interview he called reports of his adherence to Rand's views an "urban legend" and said that he was more deeply influenced by his Roman Catholic faith and by Thomas Aquinas.

But in 2005 in a speech to the Atlas Society (a group dedicated to promoting Rand's beliefs) he said "I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are and what my beliefs are. It's inspired me so much that it's required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff."
He went on to say that "the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."

He can't seem to make up his mind. Noooooow I see why he and Willard get along...

Obama seems to "evolve" on a lot of things...

- Gay Marriage
- Voted against increasing the debt limit; then supported raising it.
- Campaigned against the Bush tax cuts; then extended all of them.
- Promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term; then proposed trillion dollar deficits.
- Vowed the unemployment rate would be below 8% if his stimulus was passed; but then it broke 10%.
- Promised shovel ready jobs; then admitted they weren’t shovel ready.
- Said if you like your health plan you can keep it; but then threw seniors off Medicare Plus and employers are now saying they’ll dump people onto the public exchange.
- Promised to have health care negotiations on live TV, but then reversed himself.
- Indicated Bush violated the Constitution; then carried out warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detentions, secret renditions, quadrupled drone attacks, and kept Guantanamo Bay open. Voted against the Patriot Act, but then supported its extension.
- Said lobbyists wouldn’t work in the White House; then gave them waivers to work there.
- Vowed to take public financing for his 2008 campaign; then refused public financing when he realized he would receive more money without it.
- Keeping Guantanamo open
- Bringing back military tribunals for terror suspects
- Continuing renditions of terror suspects
- Ordering military action in Libya without seeking Congressional authorisation
- Dropping Third Site missile defences in order to appease the Russians
- Letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide
- Backing a federal Europe after defending national sovereignty
- Pledging to restore America’s standing in the world but lowering it instead
- Dumping Mubarak in Egypt after calling him a "stalwart ally"
- Killing the NASA manned space programme
- Pay as you go

I can cut and paste hundreds of these... Ya, sure, Ryan has a real problem...

Liberal newspaper? In Chattanooga, TN? You are even more clueless than I previously thought, doucheboy.

If anyone else that has more than 10 brain cells, so this eliminates you Tucker, wants to question the "liberal newspaper article", google Chattanooga Times Free Press, and see if it indeed fits the criteria of "liberal newspaper".

You obtuse moron! That was sarcasm, that's why I quoted your post..

I'm saying that Minnesota will go Red, but I posted the quote regarding Minnesota to help show the trend. Did you read "for the first time in 38 years"?

Paul Ryan Wondering If He Should Have Told Romney About This Guy He's Dating

Quote:

DES MOINES, IA—After appearing at his first solo campaign event since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee for vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) reportedly began wondering if he ought to have told running mate Mitt Romney about the man he’s been dating recently. "I guess I probably should have mentioned Elliot when Mitt and his staff talked to me last Friday," Ryan said to himself Monday, adding that it had only been a couple months since he and his boyfriend started dating exclusively and that the pair were still "in the fun, early phase" of the relationship. "I mean, we're not super serious at this point. We see each other a few times a week at most. I'm not ruling out something more meaningful down the road, but right now it's really not a big deal." According to sources, despite his initial concern, Ryan relaxed after deciding that Romney would "absolutely love Elliot" when the two met at the Republican National Convention later this month.

This is like a "Leave Romney/Britney Alone!" video. Classic. Favorite comment:

"Poor little Ann Romney -- she doesn't want to be attacked about the millions of dollars she's parked in off-shore accounts and the tax deductions she's taken on her dressage horse. Anymore stress put on this lady and she'll need the butler to move her fainting couch closer. I challenge any of my friends who intend to vote for her douche-canoe of a husband to justify her rationale for not disclosing more tax returns. The "they attack us the more we disclose" argument doesn't work -- that's like saying, "Oh, we're not going to discuss Ryan's budget plans or Romney's opinion on social issues because we'll just get attacked on it." Newsflash, you ****: politics ain't for the thin-skinned, so if you don't want to get scrutinized, then drop out of the race or grow some steel labias. P.S., when your lying-ass says you give 10% to "charity", the money you are required to give to your crazy-ass church doesn't count! I'm sure the Evangelicals who are stupid enough to vote for your husband would lose their s*** if they took a second to apply some critical thinking skills and realized that your "charitable donations" ain't going to soup kitchens and homeless shelters, but instead to the profit-hungry Church that (at least up until Romney secured the nomination) they denounced as a cult!"

I like that he's no so completely incompetent and just plain stupid as to make the Republican candidate someone that you absolutely could not vote for for fear he might be one day be President - like the last time around.

Politics and math don't compute. Romney complains that Obama's 700B cut in future medicare spending growth is a cut in benefits. Romney complains that medicare cost are too high and bankrupting the nation so he will restore that 700B.

Actually Obama's 700B "cost reduction" in medicare is *supposed* to come from increased efficiencies and reduced fraud through a modernization of the medicare billing system (good luck with that). Romney/Ryan call that a "reduction in benefits". However the Romney/Ryan plan calls for virtually the same reduction in the medicare budget, but their plan just cuts funding by reducing benefits and turning the program into a "voucher system" aka a giveaway to the private insurance industry. They also want to move the medicare funds into the private equity markets ala George W Bush aka a giveway to wall street. Fortunately Bush failed to get that one pushed through because if he had, medicare would have vanished along with everything else in the 08 crash.

Classic Paul Ryan-- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JacC7MajjJg--I tend to agree that gov. committees are largely inefficient and gov. regulation is not the solution to our problems. Even though Ryan has made mistakes, consequently for Biden, Ryan actually knows our financial state and can quote numbers, regulations, and bills that have gotten us to this point. I'd hate to go against Ryan when discussing budget issues.

".....P.S., when your lying-ass says you give 10% to "charity", the money you are required to give to your crazy-ass church doesn't count! I'm sure the Evangelicals who are stupid enough to vote for your husband would lose their s*** if they took a second to apply some critical thinking skills and realized that your "charitable donations" ain't going to soup kitchens and homeless shelters, but instead to the profit-hungry Church that (at least up until Romney secured the nomination) they denounced as a cult!"

Wes, I see there is alot of anger in the critique of Romney/LDS Church. As a Mormon, hopefully I can clarify a few points made in the article that you are concerned about.

First, I am NOT a supporter of Romney and can sympathize with your disgust with him and his positions (or lack there of!). I pray that by some miracle Ron Paul will get the nomination at the RNC and if not I'll vote for Gary Johnson....call me crazy.

Second, Romney is not "required" to give money to the Church. The 10% you are referring to is the "law of tithing" described in the Bible (Genesis 14-17-20; Malichi 3:10), and reiterated through revelation in recent times. Despite it being a "law from God" it is not a requirement for membership in the Church. I have friends and family that are active in the church who do not currently pay tithing. They are not excommunicated because of it. God's plan requires free agency. Paying tithing requires action by the payer and it is not taken by force (i.e. taxes).

Third, how does Romney's contributions to his Church, which is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation not "count"? Isn't it up to the individual who donates their money to decide if the 501(c)3 is a worthwhile charitable organization? What if he gave the money to the Catholic Church, would that count? Or what about the American Red-Cross, who the LDS Chruch has a decades old working relationship with? The Red Cross CEO recently said “The Church is a valued partner of the American Red Cross, and they have helped us in so many, many different ways. The LDS Church and its members provide financial support and in-kind donations to the Red Cross, and these generous donations have helped ease the plight of millions suffering from disasters not only in our country, but around the world.” Source: http://www.lds.org/church/news/churc...visit?lang=eng

In regards to what the church spends it's money on, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is one of the largest private humanitarian organizations in the world. One example of the work done through humanitarian aid is the Tsunami in Japan last year. More than 250 tons of supplies were distributed by the Church during the first few months following the disaster, including food, water, blankets, bedding, hygiene supplies, clothing, and fuel. More than 22,000 Church-sponsored volunteers have provided more than 175,000 hours of service to date. Additionaly, during 2011, the Church responded to 111 disasters in 50 countries, providing emergency aid and organizing thousands of volunteers to assist those affected. Not exactly what you would think of as a "profit-hungry" church.

In short, I think it is very easy to find flaws in Mitt Romney as a canidate for President of the United States without draging his religion and his fellow 14 million worldwide members who stirve to follow the Savior Jesus Christ everyday by giving of their time, resources and talents to improve the lives of millions more thoughout the world.

If you knew anything about Il you would know that Cook County ( Chicago) is a democrat stronghold, but the rest of the state is not. Maybe north St. Louis, but really no place else... The article that you call rubbish, but obviously failed to read, states that.

The Daily Caller reported on a poll today that gave a rather remarkable result: it showed Barack Obama ahead of Mitt Romney 49 to 37… in Cook County, Illinois: which of course includes the City of Chicago. Being under 50% in what can be considered the ultimate Democratic stronghold is not good news for the President. In 2008 Cook County went for Obama over McCain 67/32; in 2010 it went for Quinn over Brady 54/40… which helped make the difference from Obama’s blowout 62/37 win statewide in 2008, and Quinn’s squeaker 47/46 win in 2010. Put another way: if this poll is accurate, Obama’s got trouble in Illinois.

Since this report has been making the rounds of the Internet, I thought that I’d look into it a bit. It turns out the poll comes from McKeon & Associates, which has been polling in Illinois since at least the 1980s. A quick call to Michael McKeon got me access to the poll itself, which I’ll be talking about after the fold.

OK, to start: poll of 629 registered voters, not commissioned for a specific campaign (they were looking at something else, saw an interesting development, and went back to get a full survey). Notable breakdowns: 49/51 Chicago/Suburbs, 48/30/22 Democratic/Independent/Republican, 48/52 male/female, 62/24/10 White/Black/Hispanic. Independents [break] for Romney 43/31; but what’s really hurting Obama in this poll are his undecideds. He’s winning Democrats 79/8… and African-American voters 70/5, with the remainder being undecided. Now, before anyone objects; I don’t expect that one quarter of the Chicago African-American electorate is going to end up pulling the lever for Romney in November. However, that doesn’t mean that they’re going to end up pulling the lever for Obama, either. In fact, they may not end up pulling a lever at all.

All in all, this poll will not cause anybody to suddenly declare Illinois to be a swing state, nor should it; Barack Obama has a home-field advantage here, and even a campaign team as maladroit as his is should be able to bring in the win. But it is nonetheless not a good poll for Obama, largely because it argues that the Democratic enthusiasm gap seen elsewhere is very, very real. Even in Illinois.

***Tucker McElroy (Tucker_McElroy)*** * Join Date: Mar 2012 ***** Yesterday, 9:14 PM Reply*** Quick Reply***
If you knew anything about Il you would know that Cook County ( Chicago) is a democrat stronghold, but the rest of the state is not. Maybe north St. Louis, but really no place else... The article that you call rubbish, but obviously failed to read, states that.

Tucker, why post articles if you aren't going to take the time to read and analyze them? 95% of the article speaks of Cook County. The last small paragraph offers a synopsis of what is not going to happen in November and that is Romney winning IL. You are really out of touch with reality if you believe otherwise. And I'm basin that on what you chose to use as the title for the link:

And you posted this why? Is this supposed to be a contrast to: Hey democrat, have you killed another baby today? or hey democrats, did your priest sodomize a little boy today? (kind of odd how catholics tend to vote democrat)

The graphic is a direct response to the actual candidate's policies and co-sponsored bill (hence his photo being there) working tirelessly to try and redefine rape as "forcible rape" or as his buddy Akin puts it "legitimate rape." The actual GOP platform is now falling in line, denying abortion exceptions in case of rape: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...or-rape-incest

Your comment about Catholics is typical Roddyworld nonsense - Kerry himself is Catholic and he lost the Catholic vote to W...

^My belief is the only misspeaks for Akin is when he used the word "legitimate". He was meaning to say "forcible". But I feel he still believes a woman's body can stop itself from getting pregnant, naturally, in the case of rape, which is asinine.

More hate from the holy Christ-like Rod. Have you checked Paul Ryan's denomination? Maybe because he has taken up Romney's stance on issues, maybe he has converted to Mormonism? And the Catholic church has an unwavering opposition to abortion.

No candidate is perfect. They are all human. Ask yourself if the candidate is a man of his word? Ask yourself if the candidate has changed his stance on issues? If so then that candidate has no backbone and is not a candidate that keeps his promises. I prefer a business man who was successful as opposed to a lawyer who told you what you wanted to hear. Then took you money. After that he didn't tell you he was going to spend it on a new car. When you went to jail he said I'm sorry but it's someone else's fault,I did the best I could. Do you want a candidate that was able to run a business successfully? Or do you prefer the slick talking lawyer who's just after your money and doesn't care whether or not you have a job or a future? These are questions you should ask yourself.Are we better off now than in 2008? Are you living in a government dependent world? Or are you independent,like our forefathers intended you to be? These are things you should think about before you vote.

I have voted mostly republican in the past, but there is No way I am voting for romney. The only way he can get elected is by lying to the people. If he wins it would be an election bought with romney money. Also, this is an election on how the top 10% can control the 90%, yes the 90% is the middle class and this Is class warfare. Are the people going to believe the lies of the 10%?, we do not need the 10%, but they most certainly need us! The whole economy was devastated in 2008 and it is not going to be saved by the 10%, it is once again the middle class that has to and Will carry this country into prosperity (and romney does Not have a clue of this)
Right now the whole economy is on edge because of 2% more unemployment than there should be. Do you want a clueless business man who thinks helping the top 10% is going to help everyone(LIE) or do you want a very articulate talking lawyer who is for whats best for the people. My vote is for the People!